Throughfall and Stemflow in Wooded Ecosystems

  • Delphis F. Levia
  • Richard F. Keim
  • Darryl E. Carlyle-Moses
  • Ethan E. Frost
Chapter
Part of the Ecological Studies book series (ECOLSTUD, volume 216)

Abstract

Incident precipitation is routed to the subcanopy by throughfall and stemflow. Throughfall is defined as the precipitation that passes directly through a canopy or is initially intercepted by aboveground vegetative surfaces and subsequently drips from the canopy, whereas stemflow is the precipitation that drains from outlying leaves and branches and is channeled to the bole (or stem) of plants. Throughfall and stemflow inputs constitute the majority of incident precipitation (Table 21.1) and are of critical importance to wooded ecosystems, ranging from 70 to 90% of incoming precipitation in most cases with the remainder lost to interception (Levia and Frost 2003). The inputs of throughfall and stemflow are highly variable over space and through time with consequent “hot spots” and “hot moments” of water and solute inputs from the canopy to the subcanopy (Stout and McMahon 1961; Levia 2003; Zimmermann et al. 2007). There are marked differences in the routing of intercepted water to the forest floor via throughfall (Keim and Skaugset 2004) and stemflow (Herwitz 1987) in terms of flowpaths and residence times along vegetative surfaces, which result in notable differences in solute concentrations and mass fluxes of canopy leachates (Levia and Frost 2003; Zimmermann et al. 2007). Recent work has documented the demonstrable effects of throughfall and stemflow to the hydrology and biogeochemistry of hillslopes (Keim et al. 2006a; Liang et al. 2009). Liang et al. (2009), for example, have reported that stemflow has led to a root-induced bypass flow infiltration process on hillslopes, a coupled mechanism termed “double-funneling” (Johnson and Lehmann 2006) discussed further in Chap. 24. Stemflow also has been documented to contribute to the enrichment of soils beneath shrubs in semiarid climates, leading to a “fertile island” effect (Whitford et al. 1997), whereas the spatial distribution of fine roots was observed to mirror throughfall inputs (Ford and Deans 1978).

Keywords

Bark Surface Fertile Island Micrometeorological Condition Rainfall Simulation Experiment Canopy Storage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Alvera B (1976) Contribución al estudio de la interceptación de las precipitaciones atmosféricas en elpinar de San Juan de la Peña. Publ Cent Pir Biol Exp 7:95–100Google Scholar
  2. André F, Jonard M, Ponette Q (2008a) Spatial and temporal patterns of throughfall chemistry within a temperate mixed oak–beech stand. Sci Total Environ 397:215–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. André F, Jonard M, Ponette Q (2008b) Precipitation water storage capacity in a temperate mixed oak-beech canopy. Hydrol Process 22:4130–4141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. André F, Jonard M, Ponette Q (2008c) Influence of species and rain event characteristics on stemflow volume in a temperate mixed oak-beech stand. Hydrol Process 22:4455–4466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. André F, Jonard M, Ponette Q (2008d) Effects of biological and meteorological factors on stemflow chemistry within a temperate mixed oak–beech stand. Sci Total Environ 393:72–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Àvila A, Rodrigo A (2004) Trace metal fluxes in bulk deposition, throughfall and stemflow at two evergreen oak stands in NE Spain subject to different exposure to the industrial environment. Atmos Environ 38:171–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouten W, Swart PJF, de Water E (1991) Microwave transmission, a new tool in forest hydrological research. J Hydrol 124:199–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bouten W, Heimovaara T, Tiktak A (1992) Spatial pattern of throughfall and soil water dynamics in a Douglas fir stand. Water Resour Res 28:3227–3233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Broderson C, Pohl S, Lindenlaub M et al (2000) Influence of vegetation structure on isotope content of throughfall and soil water. Hydrol Process 14:1439–1448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bryant ML, Bhat S, Jacobs JM (2005) Measurements and modeling of throughfall variability for five forest communities in the southeastern US. J Hydrol 312:95–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Calder IR (1986) A stochastic model of rainfall interception. J Hydrol 89:65–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Calder IR (1996) Dependence of rainfall interception on drop size: 1. Development of the two-layer stochastic model. J Hydrol 185:363–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Calder IR, Wright IR (1986) Gamma ray attenuation studies of interception from Sitka spruce: some evidence for an additional transport mechanism. Water Resour Res 22:409–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Calder IR, Hall RL, Rosier PTW et al (1996) Dependence of rainfall interception on drop size: 2. Experimental determination of the wetting functions and two-layer stochastic model parameters for five tropical tree species. J Hydrol 185:379–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cantú Silva I, Okumura T (1996) Throughfall, stemflow and interception loss in a mixed white oak forest (Quercus serrata Thunb.). J For Res 1:123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carlyle-Moses DE (2002) Measurement and modelling of canopy water fluxes within representative forest stands and a matorral community of a small Sierra Madrea Oriental watershed, northeastern Mexico. PhD Dissertation, University of TorontoGoogle Scholar
  17. Carlyle-Moses DE (2004) A reply to R. Keim’s comment on “Measurement and modelling of growing-season canopy water fluxes in a mature mixed deciduous forest stand, southern Ontario, Canada”. Agric For Meteorol 124:281–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Carlyle-Moses DE, Price AG (2006) Growing-season stemflow production within a deciduous forest of southern Ontario. Hydrol Process 20:3651–3663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Carlyle-Moses DE, Price AG (2007) Modelling canopy interception loss from a Madrean pine-oak stand, northeastern Mexico. Hydrol Process 21:2572–2580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carlyle-Moses DE, Flores-Laureano JS, Price AG (2004) Throughfall and throughfall spatial variability in Madrean oak forest communities of northeastern Mexico. J Hydrol 297:124–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chiwa M, Do Hoon K, Sakugawa H (2003) Rainfall, stemflow, and throughfall chemistry at urban- and mountain-facing sites at Mt. Gokurakuji, Hiroshima, western Japan. Water Air Soil Pollut 146:93–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Clements JR (1972) Stemflow in a multi-storied aspen community. Can J For Res 2:160–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Crockford RH, Richardson DP (2000) Partitioning of rainfall into throughfall, stemflow and interception: effect of forest type, ground cover and climate. Hydrol Process 14:2903–2920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Crockford RH, Richardson DP, Sageman R (1996) Chemistry of rainfall, throughfall and stemflow in a eucalypt forest and a pine plantation in south-eastern Australia: 3. Stemflow and total inputs. Hydrol Process 10:25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Devlaeminck R, De Schrijver A, Hermy M (2005) Variation in throughfall deposition across a deciduous beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) forest edge in Flanders. Sci Total Environ 337:241–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. DeWalle DR, Swistock BR (1994) Differences in O-18 content of throughfall and rainfall in hardwood and coniferous forests. Hydrol Process 8:75–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dietz J, Hölscher D, Leuschner C et al (2006) Rainfall partitioning in relation to forest structure in differently managed montane forest stands in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. For Ecol Manage 237:170–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Dunkerley D (2000) Measuring interception los and canopy storage in dryland vegetation: a brief review and evaluation of available research strategies. Hydrol Process 14:669–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fleischbein K, Wilcke W, Goller R et al (2005) Rainfall interception in a lowland montane forest in Ecuador: effects of canopy properties. Hydrol Process 19:1355–1371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ford ED, Deans JD (1978) The effects of canopy structure on stemflow, throughfall and interception loss in a young Sitka spruce plantation. J Appl Ecol 15:905–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Friesen J, van Beek C, Selker J et al (2008) Tree rainfall interception measured by stem compression. Water Resour Res 44:W00D15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Germer S, Elsenbeer H, de Morales JM (2006) Throughfall and temporal trends of rainfall redistribution in an open tropical rainforest in south-western Amazonia (Rondonia, Brazil). Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 10:383–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hall RL (2003) Interception loss as a function of rainfall and forest types: stochastic modelling for tropical canopies revisited. J Hydrol 280:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hancock NH, Crowther JM (1979) A technique for the direct measurement of water storage on a forest canopy. J Hydrol 41:105–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Herwitz SR (1986) Infiltration-excess caused by stemflow in a cyclone-prone tropical rainforest. Earth Surf Proc Landforms 11:401–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Herwitz SR (1987) Raindrop impact and water flow on the vegetative surfaces of trees and the effects on stemflow and throughfall generation. Earth Surf Proc Landforms 12:425–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Herwitz SR, Levia DF (1997) Mid-winter stemflow drainage from bigtooth apsen (Populus grandidentata Michx.) in central Massachusetts. Hydrol Process 11:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Herwitz SR, Slye RE (1995) Three-dimensional modeling of canopy tree interception of wind-driven rainfall. J Hydrol 168:205–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hölscher D, Köhler L, van Dijk AIJM et al (2004) The importance of epiphytes to total rainfall interception by a tropical montane rain forest in Costa Rica. J Hydrol 292:308–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hörmann G, Branding A, Clemen T et al (1996) Calculation and simulation of wind controlled canopy interception of a beech forest in Northern Germany. Agric For Meteorol 179:131–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Iroumé A, Huber A (2002) Comparison of interception losses in a broadleaved native forest and a Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas fir) plantation in the Andes Mountains of southern Chile. Hydrol Process 16:2347–2361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Johnson RC (1990) The interception, throughfall and stemflow in a forest in Highland Scotland and the comparison with other upland forests in the U.K. J Hydrol 312:95–108Google Scholar
  43. Johnson MS, Lehmann J (2006) Double-funneling of trees: stemflow and root-induced preferential flow. Ecoscience 13:324–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kazda M (1990) Sequential stemflow sampling for estimation of dry deposition and crown leaching in beech stands. In: Harrison AF, Ineson P, Heal OW (eds) Nutrient cycling in terrestrial ecosystems: field methods, applications, and interpretation. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 46–55Google Scholar
  45. Keim RF (2004) Comment on “Measurement and modelling of growing-season canopy water fluxes in a mature mixed deciduous forest stand, southern Ontario, Canada”. Agric For Meteorol 124:277–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Keim RF, Skaugset AE (2004) A linear system model of dynamic throughfall rates beneath forest canopies. Water Resour Res 40:W05208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Keim RF, Skaugset AE, Weiler M (2005) Temporal persistence of spatial patterns in throughfall. J Hydrol 314:263–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Keim RF, Tromp-van Meerveld HJ, McDonnell JJ (2006a) A virtual experiment on the effects of evaporation and intensity smoothing by canopy interception on subsurface stormflow generation. J Hydrol 327:352–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Keim RF, Skaugset AE, Weiler M (2006b) Storage of water on vegetation under simulated rainfall of varying intensity. Adv Water Resour 29:974–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kendall C (1993) Impact of isotopic heterogeneity in shallow systems on modeling of stormflow generation. PhD Dissertation, University of MarylandGoogle Scholar
  51. Klaassen W (2001) Evaporation from rain-wetted forest in relation to canopy wetness, canopy cover, and net radiation. Water Resour Res 37:3227–3236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Klaassen W, Bosveld F, de Water E (1998) Water storage and evaporation as constituents of rainfall interception. J Hydrol 212–213:36–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Klingaman NP, Levia DF, Frost EE (2007) A comparison of several canopy interception models for a leafless mixed deciduous forest stand in the eastern United States. J Hydrometeorol 8:825–836CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Konishi S, Tani M, Kosugi Y et al (2006) Characteristics of spatial distribution of throughfall in a lowland tropical rainforest, Peninsular Malaysia. Forest Ecol Manag 224:19–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Kubota T, Tsuboyama Y (2003) Intra- and inter-storm oxygen-18 and deuterium variations of rain, throughfall, and stemflow, and two-component hydrograph separation in a small forested catchment in Japan. J For Res 8:179–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kuraji K, Yuri T, Nobuaki T et al (2001) Generation of stemflow volume and chemistry in a mature Japanese cypress forest. Hydrol Process 15:1967–1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Levia DF (2003) Winter stemflow leaching of nutrient-ions from deciduous canopy trees in relation to meteorological conditions. Agric For Meteorol 117:39–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Levia DF (2004) Differential winter stemflow generation under contrasting storm conditions in a southern New England broadleaved deciduous forest. Hydrol Process 18:1105–1112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Levia DF, Frost EE (2003) A review and evaluation of stemflow literature in the hydrologic and biogeochemical cycles of forested and agricultural ecosystems. J Hydrol 274:1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Levia DF, Frost EE (2006) Variability of throughfall volume and solute inputs in wooded ecosystems. Prog Phys Geog 30:605–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Levia DF, Herwitz SR (2000) Physical properties of stemflow water in relation to leachate dynamics: implications for nutrient cycling. Can J For Res 30:662–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Levia DF, Herwitz SR (2005) Interspecific variation of bark water storage capacity of three deciduous tree species in relation to stemflow yield and solute flux to forest soils. Catena 64:117–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Levia DF, Underwood SJ (2004) Snowmelt induced stemflow in northern hardwood forests: a theoretical explanation on the causation of a neglected hydrological process. Adv Water Resour 27:121–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Liang W-L, Kosugi K, Mizuyama T (2009) A three-dimensional model of the effect of stemflow on soil water dynamics around a tree on a hillslope. J Hydrol 366:62–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Liu S (1997) A new model for the prediction of rainfall interception in forest canopies. Ecol Model 99:151–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lloyd CR, Marques FA (1988) Spatial variability of throughfall and stemflow measurements in Amazonian rain forests. Agric For Meteorol 42:63–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Loustau D, Berbigier P, Granier A et al (1992) Interception loss, throughfall and stemflow in a maritime pine stand. I. Variability of throughfall and stemflow beneath the pine canopy. J Hydrol 138:449–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mahendrappa MK (1990) Partitioning of rainwater and chemicals into throughfall and stemflow in different forest stands. For Ecol Manage 30:65–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Marin CT, Bouten W, Sevink J (2000) Gross rainfall and its partitioning into throughfall, stemflow and evaporation of intercepted water in four forest ecosystems in western Amazonia. J Hydrol 237:40–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Moore RD, Winkler RD, Carlyle-Moses DE et al (2008) Watershed response to the McLure forest fire: presentation summaries from the Fishtrap Creek workshop, March 2008. Streamline Watershed Manag Bul 12:1–11Google Scholar
  71. Mosello R, Brizzio MC, Kotzias D et al (2002) The chemistry of atmospheric deposition in Italy in the framework of the National Programme for Forest Ecosystems Control (CONECOFOR). J Limnol 61:77–92Google Scholar
  72. Mulder JPM (1985) Simulating interception loss using standard meteorological data. In: Hutchison BA, Hicks BB (eds) The forest-atmosphere interaction. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 177–196Google Scholar
  73. Nadkarni NM, Sumera MM (2004) Old-growth forest canopy structure and its relationship to throughfall interception. For Sci 50:290–298Google Scholar
  74. Neary AJ, Gizyn WI (1994) Throughfall and stemflow chemistry under deciduous and coniferous forest canopies in south-central Ontario. Can J For Res 24:1089–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Park H-T, Hattori S (2002) Applicability of stand structural characteristics to stemflow modelling. J For Res 7:91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Prebble RE, Stirk GB (1980) Throughfall and stemflow on silverleaf ironbark (Eucalyptus melanophloia) trees. Aust J Ecol 5:419–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Price AG, Carlyle-Moses DE (2003) Measurement and modelling of growing-season canopy water fluxes in a mature mixed deciduous forest stand, southern Ontario, Canada. Agric For Meteorol 119:69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Price AG, Dunham K, Carleton T et al (1997) Variability of water fluxes through the black spruce (Picea mariana) canopy and feather moss (Pleurozium schreberi) carpet in the boreal forest of northern Manitoba. J Hydrol 196:310–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Pypker TG, Unsworth MH, Bond BJ (2006) The role of epiphytes in rainfall interception by forests in the Pacific Northwest. II. Field measurements at the branch and canopy scale. Can J For Res 36:819–832CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Raat KJ, Draaijers GPJ, Schaap MG et al (2002) Spatial variability of throughfall water and chemistry and forest floor water content in a Douglas fir forest stand. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 6:363–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Rothacher J (1963) Net precipitation under a Douglas-fir forest. For Sci 9:423–429Google Scholar
  82. Rowe PB, Hendrix TM (1951) Interception of rain and snow by second growth ponderosa pine. Trans Am Geophys Union 32:903–908Google Scholar
  83. Rutter AJ, Kershaw KA, Robins PC et al (1971) A predictive model of rainfall interception in forests, 1. Derivation of the model from observations in a plantation of Corsican pine. Agric Meteorol 9:367–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Salles C, Poesen J, Sempere-Torres D (2002) Kinetic energy of rain and its functional relationship with intensity. J Hydrol 257:256–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Staelens J, De Schrijver A, Verheyen K et al (2006a) Spatial variability and temporal stability of throughfall water under a dominant beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) tree in relationship to canopy cover. J Hydrol 330:651–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Staelens J, De Schrijver A, Verheyen K et al (2006b) Spatial variability and temporal stability of throughfall deposition under beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) in relationship to canopy structure. Environ Pollut 142:254–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Stout BB, McMahon RJ (1961) Throughfall variations under tree crowns. J Geophys Res 66:1839–1843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Tang C (1996) Interception and recharge processes beneath a Pinus elliotii forest. Hydrol Process 19:1355–1371Google Scholar
  89. Teklahaimanot Z, Jarvis PG (1991) Direct measurement of evaporation of intercepted water from forest canopies. J Appl Ecol 28:603–618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Trimble GR Jr, Weitzman S (1954) Effect of a hardwood canopy on rainfall intensities. Eos Trans Am Geophys Union 35:226–234Google Scholar
  91. Tukey HB Jr (1970) The leaching of substances from plants. Ann Rev Plant Physiol 21:305–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Valente F, David JS, Gash JHC (1997) Modelling interception loss for two sparse eucalypt and pine forests in central Portugal using reformulated Rutter and Gash analytical models. J Hydrol 190:141–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Van Stan JT, Levia DF (2010) Inter- and intraspecific variation of stemflow production from Fagus grandifolia Ehrh. (American beech) and Liriodendron tulipifera L. (yellow poplar) in relation to bark microrelief in the eastern United States. Ecohydrology 3:11–19Google Scholar
  94. Vernimmen RRE, Bruijnzeel LA, Romdoni A et al (2007) Rainfall interception in three contrasting lowland rain forest types in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. J Hydrol 340:217–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Voigt GK (1960) Alteration of the composition of rainwater by trees. Amer Midl Nat 63:321–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Vrugt JA, Dekker SC, Bouten W (2003) Identification of rainfall interception model parameters from measurements of throughfall and forest canopy storage. Water Resour Res 39:1251. doi: 10.1029/2003WR002013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Weiqing Z, Zhiqiang Z, Jun WU et al (2007) Spatial variability of throughfall in a Chinese pine (Pinus tabulaeformis) plantation in northern China. Front For China 2:169–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Whitford WG, Anderson J, Rice PM (1997) Stemflow contribution to the “fertile island” effect in creosotebush, Larrea tridentata. J Arid Env 35:451–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Xiao Q, McPherson EG, Ustin SL, Grismer ME, Simpson JR (2000) Winter rainfall interception by two mature open grown trees in Davis, California. Hydrol Process 14:763–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Ziegler AD, Giambelluca TW, Nullet MA et al (2009) Throughfall in an evergreen-dominated forest stand in northern Thailand: comparison of mobile and stationary methods. Agric For Meteorol 149:373–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Zimmermann A, Wilcke W, Elsenbeer H (2007) Spatial and temporal patterns of throughfall quantity and quality in a tropical montane forest in Ecuador. J Hydrol 343:80–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Zimmermann A, Zimmermann B, Elsenbeer H (2009) Rainfall redistribution in a tropical forest: spatial and temporal patterns. Water Resour Res 45:W11413CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Delphis F. Levia
    • 1
  • Richard F. Keim
    • 2
  • Darryl E. Carlyle-Moses
    • 3
  • Ethan E. Frost
    • 4
  1. 1.Departments of Geography and Plant & Soil SciencesUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA
  2. 2.School of Renewable Natural ResourcesLouisiana State UniversityBaton RougeUSA
  3. 3.Department of Geography and Graduate Program in Environmental ScienceThompson Rivers UniversityKamloopsCanada
  4. 4.Department of GeographyColgate UniversityHamiltonUSA

Personalised recommendations